While carousing Macca Central the past few days, harking back to The Beatles and activism, listening to artists speak about elections and war, it has always got me thinking about the dilemna:

How much (if any, do artists have an influence over their audiance - and is their awareness/opinion good in that it spurs us to get information, communicate and form our own opinions?
Secondly, if we buy a ticket to see them perform, how much of their opinions-information apart from the music do we want/not to hear?
Is the artist courageous and genuine in risking profit$? Or arrogant and pushy?

I recently went to Amazon.Com to read reviews about Jackson Browne's new acoustic album - and wow - it was more volatile than Macca Central dearing "Seal Week!" This because of his political comments ON the CD of his concert performance.

As Paul sings, there's a "Fine Line" for some folks, a bigger strip for some and a free-way for others. How much - if any is your cup of tea?
Now remember the forum rules and be respectful of Mike's wishes.

"Step on the gas and wipe that tear away,
One sweet dream came true today!"

You might have stated next to your link that the Onion is a very popular and acclaimed SPOOF/HUMOR web service. Not everyone knows this -especially our friends from around the world and full disclosure is reccomended, so that they not be knowingly mis-led that this is in any way accurate or real news. It's a spoof

You might have stated next to your link that the Onion is a very popular and acclaimed SPOOF/HUMOR web service. Not everyone knows this -especially our friends from around the world and full disclosure is reccomended, so that they not be knowingly mis-led that this is in any way accurate or real news. It's a spoof

First of all, Mr Paperback Writer, allow me to congratulate you for probably being the number one poster of thoughtful and original threads here. I almost always look forward to your questions, and I almost always make a point of responding to them. A tip of the hat to you.

Now on the the question at hand. I think, like John Lennon, or Bono, if as well as making quality music, that people want to hear, you have some political message (or any message of importance for that matter), it is well within your right to have as many people hear it as possible. You absolutely take the risk of people not only not listening to you, but maybe even stop listening to your music. But thats a risk Lennon and Bono took. that takes balls, if you ask me.

When I was in high school, I saw Stevie Ray Vaughan live in concert around 20 different times. He was a blues player who obviously went to the Jimi Hendrix school of blues. He evidently lived hard, nearly died due to drugs and alcohol. And every time I saw him, EVERY TIME, during what I consider do be his greatest song, he would pause the music, and give the audience a sermon (nearly 15 minutes long) about how important to live cleanly. Without booze and drugs. I respected his message. I believed he believed in what he was saying. I even thought what he was saying was right. However, truthfully, I paid to see a rock-n-blues concert, so I talked with my friends during this part. I tuned him out.

If a musician tries to improve the world by saying something of substance, if he really has an opportunity to have his voice heard, he should say what he has to say. But he does take the risk of not being heard, or being ignored, or worse yet, there being a backlash against him. But having something to say, and having the chance to be heard, and not saying it, THAT is a crime.

I want to tell her that I love her a lot, but I got to get a belly full of wine.